Author
Topic: Is this mean? Or do I just not know enough. I feel bad for him (Read 14223 times)

I just talked to my brother because I talk to him every week when I can and he told m something that really bothered me but maybe I just dont have the right experience because I work somewhere else than he does. He helped lay off someone recently who just had a kid and has a family but he was messing up a lot anyways, he's in computers and he tried to log in to another account today and got caught using his old email. My brother wants to have it effect the stuff he gave them when they let him go because I guess he was supposed to not cause any trouble? But he didnt he was just sending e-mails from his old account asking for references. I think he has a family and he didnt do anything horrible so why cause any problems. I'm not a computer worker though so maybe I'm wrong? I don't like to think my brother is mean but I think he is here? I didn't say a lot., LilacRosey

You know, that's really hard to say. You and me weren't there and don't know all the details of the situation. I think it depends upon the company's security, non-disclosure, non-compete and HR policies, if they have any, and I assume they do. A lot of times severance packages can be revoked if the former employee violates any of the terms, and though it sounds innocuous, the behavior of sending emails from his former work account could qualify. I don't know your brother, and I understand it sounds like he's kicking someone when he's down, but it may not be in your brother's control, either. He has to follow the company's rules or HE could be in trouble, too. I hope he just used the email for the purpose you said, and I hope the company decides to let it go in that case....but I can see the sense in not doing that, either. It sounds like the former employee should count himself fortunate if he's not subject to worse sanctions than just losing part or all of his severance package. I'm sorry.

There's no "mean" in policy, it just is what it is. The guy having a kid is irrelevant - anyone can have things going on: massive student loans, sick family member, house fire, immune disease, any sort of valid reason to want to cut someone some slack. And so no one gets any more slack then anyone else and policy is just policy. If the policy is he must cease and desist with the work email, and he didn't, he violated policy and there very well might be repercussions.

If someone had to be laid off, someone had to be laid off. Given a choice of

A. Worker who is messing up a lotB. Worker who does an adequate jobC. Worker who does a great job

I would lay off Worker A without even considering their personal life.

I think that the email could be a big deal. There's likely to be a lot of client/account/business info that Laid Off Guy has no business accessing. And, he could potentially do a lot of harm to the company. He could misuse company information, steal client lists, etc. Also, any messages coming from that address are a representation of the company. If he were feeling vengeful and immature, he could stir up a lot of trouble sending mean, insulting emails from the company address.

he was supposed to not cause any trouble? I think he has a family and he didnt do anything horrible so why cause any problems. I'm not a computer worker though so maybe I'm wrong? I don't like to think my brother is mean but I think he is here?

*snip*Laid Off Guy knew he wasn't supposed to 'cause trouble.' If it can affect the terms of his severance, you can bet your bottom dollar that he was made aware of it at the time. Laid Off Guy made choices and now has to live with the consequences. Brother is in the position of enforcing those consequences; that doesn't make him mean.

Logged

In the United States today, there is a pervasive tendency to treat children as adults, and adults as children. The options of children are thus steadily expanded, while those of adults are progressively constricted. The result is unruly children and childish adults. ~Thomas Szasz

I agree with PPs - this isn't about "mean" or "nice". there are company policies in place, usually for good reason. if your brother's former co worker can still log on to his email, he might (and I'm not saying he will) cause damage to the company by logging in where he shouldn't.

There is no logical reason for someone to continue to use their work email when they are no longer working there. in fact, that is exactly what they tell us to *not* do - you are not supposed to use a work email when you send out work-search related emails - you get a free email account from gmail or similar.

Is your brother in IT? is it his job to cancel this person' email account?

I think he's in information systems? I work in another area very different so I'm not famaliar. I feel better though thank you. I guess I just didnt undertsand the issues so well. I don't realize there were effects beyond what happened. I'm glad I was wrong because I really do love my brother!, LilacRosey

Whether or not the man just had a kid should not enter into this equation.

He did a poor job for his employer. He was laid off. He apparently hacked into his old work email to garner references, which he should not have done.

I don't know if I would give any consequences to this as he is now laid off, but as an employer, probably at the most I would do is just delete that email account from my mainframe system. Problem solved.

Laid off employee should not or be allowed to use his previous work email account to garner references.

Also keep in mind that usually people who get fired usually have had a chance to improve their performance or they have done something really bad. So he most likely was very bad at his job. But then you said "laid off" which usually means there is just too much work for the amount of people. In any case, they laid off either the worst performer or someone who they just don't have enough work for. Most likely other people that work there have families too! So if they laid him off, they may have given him some extra money to help out. That is fairly normal, but not required. So after they gave him the money (which was nice) he was still trying to use the company's email to either send email or use their contacts. So if you think about it, he was not being very nice back! Your brother probably feels like he did the best he could for this guy given that he was either a terrible worker or they just did not have enough work for him, and what does this guy try to do? Sneak back in to email!

I'm puzzled why the brother was discussing this situation with someone outside the company/business. Even if he didn't name the former employee, this is too much information IMO. It might be possible to recognize the person just by the details given. Since OP is not a decision maker at the business, I wonder why brother is discussing this with her.

Maybe he meant this as an object lesson in how not to behave if you've been laid off. Still, the example is so detailed that confidential information could be involved.

Just to clarify, OP mentioned that this guy wad layed off which is quite a bit different from being fired, in my experience. We have also seen somebody in another thread who was willing to withond raises based on a lack of treats so even when somebody is fired I am not inclined to adsume the employee has been given all that many chances to improve.

I would think that if they want employees who are layed off to lose access to email they would cut off access to email. It sounds like there might have been a compny fail on followinf through with that if he still had access. Perhaps I am cynical but I eonder if part of the enthusiasm for enforcing this policy might.be to distract from somebody's failure to cut off this guy's access to begin with.

Just to clarify, OP mentioned that this guy wad layed off which is quite a bit different from being fired, in my experience. We have also seen somebody in another thread who was willing to withond raises based on a lack of treats so even when somebody is fired I am not inclined to adsume the employee has been given all that many chances to improve.

Not always the case. At my previous job (which I left for something better, neither fired or laid off) the HR department did everything they could to avoid firing a person for cause, up to and including laying them off instead. It makes a difference in what kind of severance the employee receives and what kind of unemployment benefits they can qualify for with the government. Evil!Boss was asked to resign instead of being fired for being a drunken raving madman on the job, and Worst!Coworker!Ever was laid off (rather than fired) after leaving nude photos of himself on a work computer and lying to the library patrons about services provided in yet another backstab maneuver.

So OP's brother may have been laying him off instead of firing to be nice, and was rewarded with the guy using his email after being informed not to do anything of the sort. I'd be raving mad if someone abused my trust after doing them such a favor too.

Edit: Oh, and email accounts may be preserved to retain the information they contain. If I were to leave my current company, they would need to keep my email account open so that they would still have the records of the work I've done. The onus is on me to have integrity, if I fail that then I don't deserve anything given in a severance agreement that I've broken with my own actions.

Just to clarify, OP mentioned that this guy wad layed off which is quite a bit different from being fired, in my experience. We have also seen somebody in another thread who was willing to withond raises based on a lack of treats so even when somebody is fired I am not inclined to adsume the employee has been given all that many chances to improve.

Not always the case. At my previous job (which I left for something better, neither fired or laid off) the HR department did everything they could to avoid firing a person for cause, up to and including laying them off instead. It makes a difference in what kind of severance the employee receives and what kind of unemployment benefits they can qualify for with the government. Evil!Boss was asked to resign instead of being fired for being a drunken raving madman on the job, and Worst!Coworker!Ever was laid off (rather than fired) after leaving nude photos of himself on a work computer and lying to the library patrons about services provided in yet another backstab maneuver.

So OP's brother may have been laying him off instead of firing to be nice, and was rewarded with the guy using his email after being informed not to do anything of the sort. I'd be raving mad if someone abused my trust after doing them such a favor too.

Sharnita's right. There are technical definitions to being laid off versus fired. You can say you are laying someone off to be nice, but really unless you are eliminating their position from the organization entirely, you've fired them.

eta - Regardless of terminology, the guy no longer works for the company and in my experience denying access to email accounts is standard.

Just to clarify, OP mentioned that this guy wad layed off which is quite a bit different from being fired, in my experience. We have also seen somebody in another thread who was willing to withond raises based on a lack of treats so even when somebody is fired I am not inclined to adsume the employee has been given all that many chances to improve.

Not always the case. At my previous job (which I left for something better, neither fired or laid off) the HR department did everything they could to avoid firing a person for cause, up to and including laying them off instead. It makes a difference in what kind of severance the employee receives and what kind of unemployment benefits they can qualify for with the government. Evil!Boss was asked to resign instead of being fired for being a drunken raving madman on the job, and Worst!Coworker!Ever was laid off (rather than fired) after leaving nude photos of himself on a work computer and lying to the library patrons about services provided in yet another backstab maneuver.

So OP's brother may have been laying him off instead of firing to be nice, and was rewarded with the guy using his email after being informed not to do anything of the sort. I'd be raving mad if someone abused my trust after doing them such a favor too.

Sharnita's right. There are technical definitions to being laid off versus fired. You can say you are laying someone off to be nice, but really unless you are eliminating their position from the organization entirely, you've fired them.

eta - Regardless of terminology, the guy no longer works for the company and in my experience denying access to email accounts is standard.

I think he's in information systems? I work in another area very different so I'm not famaliar. I feel better though thank you. I guess I just didnt undertsand the issues so well. I don't realize there were effects beyond what happened. I'm glad I was wrong because I really do love my brother!, LilacRosey

It' snot about what area this man works in. I'm not information systems, but if I violate my company's policies, they can fire me.

I'm sure your brother doesn't feel great about so negatively affecting this guy's life. But if your brother is generally a good guy and he sounded mad about THIS guy and this situation, then this guy probably really messed up.

Edit: Oh, and email accounts may be preserved to retain the information they contain. If I were to leave my current company, they would need to keep my email account open so that they would still have the records of the work I've done. The onus is on me to have integrity, if I fail that then I don't deserve anything given in a severance agreement that I've broken with my own actions.

I'm not saying the guy was right, but if a company can't manage to archive the email account or even just change the password to lock out a former employee then they are setting themselves up for a potential disaster. Should they *have* to? Well, I suppose no more than I should have to lock the doors to my house to prevent someone stealing. But I certainly make sure to lock them every day.